tv [untitled] April 26, 2013 2:00am-2:31am PDT
fewest options and i think that is a good thing to follow as a government too. the people have read the san francisco chronicle article in march about the increase in homeless families in san francisco. many people or 10,000 people are homeless in san francisco and many people are losing their homes through foreclosures. winters are going to become an endangered species and the google will pass by saying there is another endangered species like going to the zoo. i support all of the amendments and any strong protections. so that people will be able to stay in san francisco, keep their homes, keep the medical care and their neighbors, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> and before we start the clock. for the folks in the overflow, we had a bunch of seats open up, i think that we have enough seats to accommodate the folks at this point. >> good afternoon, supervisors,
my name is elizabeth gordon and i am a co-owner of two tic buildings in the city, one a six unit building that we purchased 8 years ago in district three, and a 3, unit building about ten years in district eight. while the original bypass legislation is much needed, the amendments make it impossible our chances of converting our tic units to condos, we have previously met the existing requirements of three years, in both buildings we have been in a lottery before but to no avail, we are were not drawn. but now we have lost in one building, an owner occupier and we are about to lose in another building another owner, through no fault of the remaining owners. the existing tic law is hard enough already as it exists. these amendments have done or
have encouraged these unattractive tic ownership going forward. because of the change to the owner occupantcy requirements from two to six years, even if they started to again the lost or about to lost one owner occupier in each of those buildings, the bypass legislation will have expired by the time that we have a replacement in place and satisfy the new 6 year requirement and further the lottery will not be an option because you will have to suspended it for what could turn out to be 16 years and even when the lottery is reinstituted are 6 unit building will be completely barred from converting and our three unit building will require not just one owner occupier but two, when we had trouble keeping even the one given how difficult the laws
already are in san francisco. we have proceeded in good faith, fostering first time ownership in our buildings and providing rental housing by following the rules and the rules existed since we purchased, and yet, the amendments now very drastically changed those rules. i could have no doubt that this legislation will be buying the city's litigation for years to come and the cost of it will significantly under mine the supposed wine fall that you think that you will be getting by the (inaudible) fees and while that litigation is ongoing, the amendment says that the expedited process will be suspended but does not provide for the lottery, that is uncrediblely unfair. there is no win in these amendments for the co-owners and my tic buildings, instead we feel that most clearly we have been thrown under the bus in the rush to make a deal. making a deal for the sake of
doing so, will not... to hurt real people who have played by the rules for ten years now with all due respect is not the way that our great city should be legislating. we believe that we can do better and we ask that you please consider doing so. >> thank you. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is peter rice and i am the executive director of small property owners in san francisco, our members and the board of directors and individually have discussed this legislation and our recommendation to you is to kill it, in this committee as quickly as possible, and let's start anew. you know, the problems that you have were outlined by the previous speaker before me, so i don't have to repeat them in great detail.
but, people have put just five and six unit buildings and now they won't be able to convert them to once they are tics and then convert them into condos that will not be allowed and that will lead to a lot of litigation, also, the ten-year moratorium sort of means that we don't know, but it probably means that you probably will not have 2,000 conversions or 200 a year for ten years during the moratorium period. also, the starting up as the lottery again is continuing upon somehow linking it to more affordable housing and we don't know what that means. so all in all, let's kill this now, and start again, and see if we can't help the tic owners. i do feel that the tic owners really do need to be helped. particularly on the mortgage rates that they are paying. but, this legislation is not the way to do it.
>> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker? >> my name is derek (inaudible) and i work with people of all disabilities and aging and helping them live more independently in the community and participate actively. we support the amendment because it preserves the option of the families whose seniors and disabled and (inaudible) under section 1391 of the division code, we fully support this amendment and proposal because it was (inaudible) it would stop future conversions for more than a decade and slowing down evictions and maintaining san francisco's conversions over the long term. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker.
>> good afternoon. i am (inaudible) and i have been a tenant of the (inaudible) for 23 years. i am opposed to this conversion plan. please vote no to this plan because there will be more homeless people, it is very hard to be evicted especially if you have been in a certain place for many, many years. i have experienced in the process of being eviction, in 1997 when our apartment was bought by a certain (inaudible) of the san francisco apartment authorization. and i thank the board and the tender loin housing clinic who have helped me and (inaudible) my apartment. and it is part, eviction, eviction is death, thank you. >> my name is (inaudible) and i
work as a community organizer, but i am not here to talk as a community organizer, that is annoying, i am actually i leave in east bay and it is one of the reasons i can't afford to live in san francisco with my pay and another thing that i want to say is increasingly people have been from san francisco and they have families and such are moving out to oakland, berkeley, parts of the east bay because they can't afford to be here. i remember last year around this time, i was actually here talking about the need for affordable housing because of the low working class. and that was a conversation that we were having. and like i want to thank you, supervisor chiu and kim for making this amendment come forth because the last hearing went and the people were talking about the need for we have seen that and thank you
for putting this on because that is needed to talk about, just one time half is not a real solution, it is actually kind of at the expense of people that you are trying to help which are the families and the people who understand san francisco, right? i wanted to go back to what? where is the city's real priority and the public's out rage about the lack of affordable housing and last year and it is still true. the general, the regional housing shows that san francisco continues to build really high income housing and not enough affordable housing for the folks who really need it and why are we talking about not focusing on that deal so that we should not be focusing on the deal. for looking at the few folks
who are saying. >> and i am going to call names. >> ramond, castio. >> and (inaudible). and peter coen and andrew, (inaudible) and cythia cruise. and paula (inaudible) and becky lee, and tailor and young and also alfred chin. >> thank you, good afternoon. my name is steven tennis and i would like to say that my last name is tennis means or may look like (inaudible) but it has a nice ring to it.
and any way, i support the amendments and proposed by the (inaudible) yee and campbell. and the (inaudible) units are lost forever. we need to insure that the working class and low income tenants to have secure and affordable housing. >> the common conversion is set to combine the real estate speculation and being able to keep our neighborhoods safe from evictions. thank you very much. >> thank you very much >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is chris well burn and i live in district five and i am concerned about this legislation and it appears to be a solution for a few people that will effect thousands of san franciscoanand this is no way to address the policy or to solve the affordable housing shortages. and if you want to help, a few
tic owners who are in financial trouble, well, how about helping the hundreds of home owners forcing foreclosure why leave them out. i want to keep my neighbors and friends, the wealth of the diversity in san francisco, and the seniors and lower income and the people who work here and the lower class folks and not ship them all out of town, i propose that it needs more hearings and i propose that there are four hearings in the community in at least four areas that really talk about what this is trying to solve and who benefits. thank you. >> and good afternoon, supervisors, my name is hipana and i am an organizer of the american community, association and also a resident of the tender loin, my organization opposed this ordinance, because
this will we leave in one bedroom unit, and we are ten in the bedroom unit and thank you that we can see that you were able to get the affordable housing for the family, and so if this is passed, and in its place more residents and it will be felt in more. and it was like when i was or arrived from the philippines and i hope that this organization will be more, discussed and but it will not be solved through the displacement and the eviction. >> thank you. >> thank you.
>> and we have four of the original legislation that we are against the amendments because the reasoning behind the long suspension is because we are told that tic taked way from the rent controlled affordable housing staff. and the suspension can only be shortened if the city provides enough affordable housing. so this is wrong. why are small property owners and tic owners responsible for providing affordable housing, other than owning and living in the tic we paid dearly for and then they got punished when decades of suspension and that is help with the city's ability
to have both the affordable housing, we as families of three generation wes have our elderlies that live with us and our parents in the 70s and 80s, and inlaws also live with us and we have kids that still have to go to school and send them to school. and so this seems like the private properties are no longer private businesses. we now even process balanced profit and not even for profit, organizations we are non-profit and we are not even that but we are charitis that providing the way below market and way below the operational cost services. small property owners cannot afford these charity its should have been the government's job and now it is transferred to private properties. we are charity and our renter income should be tax free and
should pay on the benefits that they received from the landlord and that should be market minus the actual rent. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is (inaudible) and i am a representative of small property owners. the original concern that was raised by this ordinance was to provide remedies for the number of tic owners who are in the lottery, all of them bought their properties knowing that the lottery existed that they need to go through the process to convert the condos. whether or not they should get relief from having is a different question of whether we should make changes. the existing rules will work for the people going forward and the changes are going to have counter productive effects. people are trying to avoid
evictions and i don't believe that in fact the proposed amendments are going to provide aoe visions evictions, i think that the pressure to create the tics is one that will continue, whether this board passes the ordinances or not, and that the power of home ownership is so strong that there will be more and more tics no matter what legislation is adopted. the board should be trying to create to manage the process of converting properties from apartment buildings to tics rather than trying to stop it, i think that the board is very much like (inaudible) trying to find the ways to stop, it is not going to stop the people want to own their homes and tics are going to continue. all of the permanent restrictions require lifetime (inaudible) and tent ants is just going to tell tic owners they should make sure that they have no tentcy in a building and the time to convert, i think that at the end of the day, the board is going to create evictions rather than stop them. and i think that it should be
rejected thank you. >> thank you. next speaker >> good afternoon. cythia cruise here. and the league of (inaudible) has published 15 consecutive voter guides to support our friends and excite the voters the politicians that we are paying attention. there are three sides to this issue, when the tic owners and the real estate industry and it is something that needs to be done to create affordable housing in san francisco. but while the legislation promises some and referred to the original legislation there and also means that losing the 2600 properties to condo conversion and the signal to the real estate industry and the open season to create more tics and that is not the right way to create affordable housing. i want to clarify those. tics are not necessarily affordable housing. middle income and even upper
middle income folks cannot afford many of these units. there are millionaires buying buildings and they are not the fantasy working class person but the industry wants the example of why this legislation needs to be put north. the proposed compromise on the conversions makes us nervous, we would be more comfortable with voting this down, but we are standing by the allies who have lived and breathed this for year. we support the compromise that it cannot be watered down further. >> we don't like the legislation that moves the goal post. (inaudible) the rules of the lottery and changing the rules now that they might be able to change the rules again, we want to see the lottery go away altogether and stop tics from being converted into condos. and in an ideal world we would have added more amendments we
think that the 4,000 to 20,000 conversion fee is too small. idealy the cover should cover the cost of building a replacement unit. we want to have an oversight agency to see the conversions through so that no dirty properties are able to convert and lifetime leases can be enforced on a local and state level. (inaudible) no more give aways to the real estate industry it may not be a protenant board of supervisors any more but it is a protenant city and if the board gives into realtors they will take the sheut to the ballot. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, peter coen from the housing organization, we strongly support the amended proposal.
it is a compromise, it is important to remember that our current rental housing stock is a limited and precious resource and when the condos when they are converted to tic and condos the city loses rental housing. that is not the demonized tiv owners per se, but we are dealing with a thick stock and so we have to be careful about how that process works, the pace of it and what we are getting in exchange. this legislation very smartly and carefully tie that conversion, that loss to the production of affordable housing into the future. and ensures that we are increasing net supply of rental housing and not simply spending in place and that ties us to the duration and the need to the suspension of the lottery to allow that to replacement to take place and frankly the change the culture of losing so much rental housing. this legislation solves for the
need of current tic owners which is what we heard two or three months ago. but it does it in the way of saying that there needs to be clear reforms to the system to not create the same reforms to the system in the future, that is why this is already a come pro3450is. nothing that waters this down further will be acceptable to our organization in support of the tenant community but frankly for good housing policy. this is the winning proposal and we thank the leadership of kim, chiu and yee and we know of the strong support of the board and we suggest that you vote this out of committee today. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is cathy wiscom and here to represent the san francisco ans for community empowerment. >> now after weeks of work, they have worked out amendments
that will slow the process, protect, against evictions and support rent control and control to increased affordable housing stock. many thanks to the tenant organizations and the 30 community groups including the tenant organizations which worked with supervisors of the most campos, kim, chiu, and mar and they thank them for supporting these important displacement amendments, very, very important. and i hope that we can soon thank other supervisors. according to the department of public works, between 1980 and 2011, 2426 units were converted to condos and notice that i said units. we do not know the numbers of people displaced and no one knows what happened to them. tired, worker, i often woner how much longer the department store clerks that are (inaudible) the home care workers and the hospital workers and the teachers will
be able to live in this city where they work, we cannot allow our city to be only for those who can pay a million dollars for housing. so we will come a long, healthy moratorium on conversions. we especially cheer the ones who want affordable replacing housing as the 2500 units go through the conversion process over the next six years after which begins the moratorium. one thought comes to mind on this subject. not everybody can be a home owner but everybody needs a home thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> my name is (inaudible) ricum and i am the board of small property owners and a mom who raised three kids in this city. i read yesterday's chronicle that the board has decreed a year in the family and family friendly policies and preschools and play grounds are fine but where are these
families going to live. here is my daughter and son-in-law as examples. their friends and co-workers have faced the same. he is a teacher and she (inaudible) bought a little one bedroom condo south of market, now three years later, with a toddler and an infant, they have to move but where, they are lucky p our flat is empty and they can live there until they save enough to buy a place, but so many of their friends and others have moved into east bay. and gathering today, we are about to vote on rules that will make condo conversion tic to condo practically impossible ex-saser baits a situation. this situation, this city was created in i situation with all of the eviction controls where the land lords of yesteryear have become it of today.
please hold up the legislation and open your minds to what you are doing to young families who want to become home owners. it is one of the foundations of our society. home owners make it livable and on improvement communities and have a stake in the neighborhood. i have been to dozens of park and clean up and tree planting since we moved in 1974 and i have never, ever seen a tenant take part in one of these. we need home ownership thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker >> my name is tony, and i represent seniors and we serve senior and people with disabilities rent control, rent control. i don't know how else to say it. you know, we can't afford to
canibalize >> we can't afford to lose further rent control and housing in san francisco. and the stocks have been diminished enough and can't be replaced and again, i can't say it enough that it is lost forever, we need to protect that, i am seeing more eviction and more elders that are coming into my office and it is heart breaking because these elders and people with disability are scared. they are scared, of being intimidated and it is, it is very life changing and a lot of these are ellis acts and i understand that the percentages of ellis acts, evictions has gone through the roof within the last year. i think that the legislation is fair and it does provide a solution to tic owners. s and it is